Today (well, October 27, so technically, it’s yesterday) it’s been a year since I started my blog. Happy birthday to the little blog that could! I’d like to look at how things changed (or didn’t) in a year, both domestically and internationally.

To begin with, we’re no longer in Republican primary season–the U.S.
election is only 10 days away. (My second blog post, in October 2011, was about Hermain Cain, who was, unbelievably, leading the polls in the Republican primary at the time.)

The situation in Syria has gotten much worse. With estimates of over 30,000 killed, and many more detained, tortured, and missing, the Syrian crisis has deteriorated since its beginning in March of 2011. Bashar al Assad has remained in power longer than anyone predicted, and it doesn’t appear that “his days are numbered”, as everyone has said since the situation in Syria has gotten so horrific that it could no longer be ignored.

The narrative about Europe and the Eurozone crisis has largely remained the same. Temporary stability has been achieved due to (mostly German-based) bailouts of struggling countries like Greece.

There have been no global climate change agreements to which the US has been a party. This is, perhaps, one of the most disappointing and frightening modes of inaction to occur in the last year. We will surely pay the price for ignoring the effects we have on the climate. The common argument is that during an economic crisis, you can’t think long term. Wrong. You HAVE to think long term. Even if we can’t do everything overnight, let’s attempt to make substantial progress. Not doing anything is a cop out, and it will be fatal. We must begin, and I’m hoping that Congress passes actual legislation, and the second term of the Obama administration makes this a priority. In addition, green jobs are real jobs.

The Keystone XL pipeline legislation was not passed, and there is support by the Obama administration for alternative energy, but no legislation on the effects of climate change has passed. President Obama owes environmentalists, progressives, and the future of humanity.

The fiscal cliff (as a result of the budget deal) looms ever larger. This debt ceiling deal was, and continues to be, a terrible Hobbesian choice that never should have come up for a vote. The fact that ignorant and reckless Tea Party economic terrorists held the government and the economy hostage makes me seethe. The fact that the House will likely still retain a Republican majority of the very same (and maybe even more conservative and ignorant members) because people vote against their interests is even more upsetting.

President Obama expressed support for same sex marriage…after Joe Biden preempted his announcement. I love Joe, though. As he said in the Vice Presidential Debate against Paul Ryan, he always says what he means, and means what he says, and people know that about him.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed on September 20, 2011, but was implemented in the months following the passage if the act. And guess what? No one died–directly from gays and lesbians serving in the military, anyway.

President Obama passed a first step toward Dream Act-style legislation.

Elections changed leadership in France, Italy, and other places (including Arab Spring elections), while oppression and allegations of voter fraud prevailed in places like Russia, Mauritius, and Venezuela led to new terms for Putin, Chavez, and the arrest of Mauritius’s previously ousted democratically-elected leader.

On September 11, 2012, the now infamous Benghazi terrorist attack occurred, killing four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya. It was terribly tragic, and while an investigation is rightfully taking place, this event should not be politicized. Those who have politicized it should be ashamed.

In China, Bo Xilai’s corruption (and his wife’s murder of a British journalist), as well as the FoxConn disgrace, suicides, and strikes of workers living in inhumane conditions was revealed to the world. Even economic tigers have problems.

The “War on Women” has continued. I could write an entire blog post on this alone.

The world was stunned when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot. There have been several deadly shootings since then.

A No Labels candidate (the magical figure who was supposed to save us from the ever-increasing chasm of partisan divide) has not materialized. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, whose party and candidacy might be the most viable electoral alternative, was not invited to the debates. Neither were any of the other candidates from outside of the two main parties.

The War in Iraq officially ended. As per President Obama’s campaign promise, the War in Afghanistan is set to end–whatever that means, exactly–in 2014.

An unprecedented amount of money (much by outside groups) has been spent on elections this season. Over $2 billion has been spent on the presidential election alone. Think of all the other things that money could’ve been spent on.

Sure, there’s a lot to be disillusioned about, but a lot of things need to change. We don’t exactly have many other options. I’m optimistic about progress. We’ll see where we are a year from today.

I’m writing this with the perspective of having seen both the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate. I’d like to comment on the veracity of both.

I hope that anyone who reads this post will watch tomorrow night’s debate through a pretty straightforward lens. My main criterion is very simple: Support the candidate who tells you the truth. I know, it seems like a tall order. It shouldn’t, though. If both major party candidates lie tomorrow night, both should be admonished. While the candidates—and every politician—is ultimately responsible for what he or she says, the environment should not exist in which certain behavior (e.g., lying) is not only expected, but encouraged.

For some time, there has been a not so tacit acceptance that politicians lie. For at least as long as there have been politicians, the cynical belief that you can’t trust someone who seeks to attain and maintain power has been stubbornly cemented into the collective consciousness. To an extent, this ethic may be true. It is a logical extension of human nature, and has certainly been borne out by empirical observation.

The idea that a politician can lie to get ahead, that a person can—and should—lie to the very people he or she hopes to serve is not ok.

It is not the world of 1984. There is no (official) Ministry of Truth, passing off falsehoods as fact. Politicians and members of the media are responsible for disseminating true statements, not self-serving lies.

On October 4, Dana Milbank, widely read columnist for The Washington Post, said something shocking on Martin Bashir’s show on MSNBC. Bashir asked Milbank to explain an article he had written, defending Romney’s debate performance. Milbank ended up admitting that, yes, Romney did lie on countless occasions during the debate. He had no reason to believe that these lies were not deliberate deceptions intended to win the debate. Essentially, facts be damned. When pressed further by Bashir on the major ethical issues of running for the highest office in the country, and how such action certainly undercuts legitimacy, Milbank said that Obama “let him lie”, and that that’s how you play the game. Milbank said that after he watched over 20 Republican primary debates, he didn’t see how “you would expect anything different”. Milbank maintained that lying is fine and, in Romney’s case was an advantageous move. He thinks Romney owes the country nothing, and basically said that the ball is in Obama’s court to disprove Romney’s lies. Both Bashir and Milbank agreed on Romney’s “litany of lies”. Milbank saw no problem with these lies. Not only was he complicit in this disgusting system; he praised Romney in both a widely circulated newspaper editorial and on national television.

People should be very upset. The onus, however, should not be on every person to fact check every statement. Everyone should be informed, and people like me do fact check political statements, but no one should have to expect that lies are the default position. What are journalists for? Where is the media? Oh, right, certain members—the Dana Milbanks of the media—are not doing their jobs. I don’t care if this was an opinion piece. Dana Milbank should be ashamed for encouraging such behavior, and then for doubling down on his encouragement. Like Mitt Romney, “no apologies”, it seems.

Paul Ryan also lied in his debate with Joe Biden. Ryan has a habit of disavowing the truth. The moniker “Lyin’ Ryan” didn’t come from nowhere.

Yes, I’ve been picking on Romney and Ryan. I’m putting them under the microscope because they represent very vivid and pretty indisputable examples. This is not a purely partisan issue, and I don’t seek to be discredited by acting as if it is. Lying, no matter what person, party, or persuasion, is not acceptable. It is not how you win debates, and it shouldn’t be how you win votes.

Aren’t the candidates supposed to love and laud “the American people”? To politicians everywhere: what a tremendous slap in the face to the citizens you expect to vote for you. You’re supposed to be a public servant.

To be completely clear about why such lying is problematic at best and morally bankrupt at worst, I will list five reasons why the electorate should not passively accept those who seek to lead us deceiving us.

1. An “anything goes” downward spiral: The first excuse given by anyone seeking to apologize for a politician’s lies are “but the other side does it!”, as if this excuse somehow absolves their candidate of responsibility for wrongdoing. If evasive tactics haven’t worked (further compounding the lie into an often unmanageable, tangled web of more and more lies), and the candidate is stuck with “blueberry pie on [his or her] face”, as Al Sharpton likes to say, then the act of lying is used as a defense mechanism. We, the voters, are reminded that our candidate has to “fight back” against the barrage of lies being told about him or her by his or her opponent. We are to believe that every race is an arms race and that each campaign degenerates into a prisoner’s dilemma. Of course, it would be nice if the candidates each just highlighted their own records and didn’t have to lie, but unfortunately, once the “other side” does it, “our side” has no choice. We are made to believe that the only thing that can neutralize lying is more lying, whether or not the “other side” even lied in the first place. There is so much deliberate fabrication and spin, especially by outside groups (yes, I’m calling you out, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove), that it seems chaos is created intentionally to justify further lying. At least in the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction prevented each side from nuking the other because everyone realized it was in their best interest not to bring us all down. Politicians and their enablers would do well to learn a lesson from history.

2. The No Responsibility Ethic: If a politician is encouraged to lie (and takes the bait), in a debate, let’s say, then we can be assured that person has little in the way of scruples. This person is unlikely to take responsibility for lying, or for any of the consequences of his or her misinformation or disinformation. The candidate has a reputation to uphold! How dare you question his or her character? Do you really want someone in office, representing you, who does not take responsibility for his or her actions? The rest of the country is constantly reminded of the fact that we are supposed to take “responsibility for our lives” (here’s looking at you, Mitt Romney; yet, it’s more than alright for Romney to lie?)—I sense a disconnect here.

3. Unethical Conduct and the Trust Factor: This is very clear cut. Lying is unethical. Most people would agree on this point. Ask any focus group or perform any poll, and I can almost guarantee you that when presented with the idea of outright lying, this practice would be nearly universally panned by almost any panel. This idea cuts at the heart of our instinctive drive to trust others who have proven they are trustworthy. If someone will lie to you, how can you trust him or her? And should you trust him or her? Pick any point in human history. One person’s lie could have led to an early human version of you being eaten by a wild animal, or a seventeenth century version of you being burned at the stake. Trust is crucial to survival. Trust is earned and can be broken. Betrayal is devastating, even if it doesn’t result in one’s immediate demise. That is why we put such a premium on it. If someone betrays you, especially repeatedly, how can you trust this person?

4. Abuse of Power and a Sense of Elite Entitlement: We hear a lot about the divisiveness of politics, about how it’s wrong to separate people. From accusations of “class warfare” to charges of exclusion, we like to pretend America is one big, happy family, and that “united we stand; divided we fall” is an ethic to live by—until it’s not. This is only a categorical imperative for the lowly, the lesser. If politicians are allowed to lie, it sends the message that the rest of society is somehow not entitled to the same privilege, that an exception is made for the politician. Somehow, the view has been turned upside down. Instead of those who tell the truth being placed above those who lie, lying engenders a dividing line. Those who can lie with relative impunity live in the VIP room of society. They end up thinking they are allowed to act in a way contrary to the behavior expected of the general population, and how is this normally abhorrent behavior justified? Well, they must be special, or their circumstances are special. Either way, they are patricians to the rest of the American plebeians. They—the politicians—are the elite who must pay lip service to everyone else. This leads to the cordoning off of certain sections of society, like politicians, who are allowed to act in a way normally viewed as unbecoming for the rest of us. It leads to politicians thinking they are special, therefore, further separating themselves from being “one of the people”. One cannot expect to be accurately represented by such a person.

5. It’s Disingenuous: What’s real?: This is an important point: I’m not saying all politicians lie, and I’m not saying they do it all the time. If it happens even once in a presidential debate, however, that is one time too many. It’s unbelievable to me that there actually exists an adviser to the Romney campaign who claims that the campaign is not beholden to fact checkers. This statement is viewed by some as heroic. Really? Facts don’t matter? What else do we have? Suddenly, a campaign can create its own reality. Well, not only is that unfair, and the other candidates do not even stand a chance if fictional versions of themselves are presented to the public, but it’s pretty irrational and scary, not to mention incredibly arrogant. Facts do matter. Unbiased data is essential. Voters have the right to make informed decisions based on real evidence. No one should be allowed to cheat.

When you watch the debate tomorrow night, judge the candidate’s integrity. This is important. You deserve to be told the truth, and not to be manipulated. Demand a basic level of decency and honesty from politicians. Your vote matters. They are there to serve you, and lying about their records or their opponents in an effort to get ahead or pull one over on voters should be a disqualifier. Think about it: it would be in almost any other position or area of life. Those who make the climate comfortable for liars are equally responsible. Honesty and integrity are basic tenets. Telling the truth is the least people can do.

Decrying incivility in government is about as uncommon as a politician wearing a flag pin. Everyone says there should be a return to civility, and many a politician has called for it at one point or another during his or her campaign. The truth is that common courtesy and a basic respect for those with whom one disagrees are too often viewed as quaint relics. These sentiments are often seen as losing strategies and can even be seen as traitorous since they might not do enough to galvanize one’s particular base. I maintain that calling the hate and bigotry on the right end of the political spectrum as bad as the vitriol spewed from the left a false equivalency, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m not saying that everyone who subscribes to a certain political party or who promotes specific stances has an utter disregard for those with whom he or she disagrees. As is the case with most things, unfortunately, it’s those who scream the loudest, say the nastiest things, and occupy the greatest attention (due to the constant media spotlight), who become our icons and our political rock stars. Anyone who’s ever been in an elementary school class with those few kids whose bad behavior resulted in punishment for the whole class knows the drill. Perhaps it’s sociology: as voyeurs and voracious consumers of entertainment as well as the need to feel a sense of belonging or group identity in an increasingly alienated world, we seek out these atrocious displays of animosity. As people tear each other down, we cheer from the stands. Again, not everyone delights in this spectacle, and not all the time. Rome had its circuses, its great gladiatorial spectacles, but it also had its philosophers—and its statesmen.

It is these very statesmen (statespeople, really)—who take their positions seriously, and make the effort to solve problems and improve the human condition—who are often the ones ignored. Worse, they are punished for their willingness to compromise, to assess from all angles, to stray from the flock. Critical thinking is secondary to claiming and maintaining power, and this maintenance of power (as well as the attempts to attain it) is too often achieved by obliterating and dehumanizing the opposition. Those in Congress who buck the trend—the Dick Lugars, the Mike Castles—are swiftly replaced as their courtesy and reaches “across the aisle” mark them as liabilities. That a serious and accomplished presidential candidate such as Jon Huntsman was written off as soon as he announced his primary campaign is another testament to this climate. When urged to slam his opponents with acerbic insults, Huntsman calmly shook his head and chose substance over superficiality. The media soon got bored of his nuanced assessment of trade policy with China and his assertions that climate change is indeed real—and, gasp!, a result of human pollution and industry.

The primary system is also devised in such a way that skill or qualifications do not necessarily determine which candidate advances; rather, the one who can trip the rest of the competitors enough to come out ahead then faces his or her opponents, who have also, probably, clawed and bitten their way to the general election by emerging the most ideologically pure, the most willing to denigrate their primary opponents, and, are often the most monied people in their races. Since the two major parties are so dominant in the American system—from local politics all the way up to the national stage—polarization is unsurprisingly prevalent. The Tea Party has undoubtedly made Congressional polarization worse.

This all serves as a backdrop to the kind of thing that hits closer to home. As much as I would like everyone I encounter to be as politically engaged as I am, I realize that most people are not. Most people don’t know about the “Oh, snap!” moments that occur daily in the hallowed halls of Congress, conveniently couched between the decorous language of “My distinguished colleague from such and such state…”, and how these insults diminish debate and waste incredible amounts of time. Most people did not watch every Republican primary debate. Most people did not even know who Paul Ryan was before last Saturday. This level of ignorance is disheartening, but it’s not the subject of this blog post. The point is that most people will interact with others who employ the same lack of civility. They will also read what their idols write in magazines. They may very well incorporate these ideas into their everyday lives and begin to hate the “other”—the enemy—among them. This, unlike conservative monetary policy, has a measurable trickle down effect.

These are the people I want to focus on. The examples I provide are self-described progressives, proving that, unlike their limited conceptions that conservatives are the only purveyors of bigoted rhetoric, they, too, spread ignorance, disinformation and misinformation, and even incite violence toward those they malign.

Let’s start with Exhibit A. I’d like to begin with a woman on Twitter. This woman was trying to make a point about “rape culture” and the fact that consent can be revoked by a woman even in the middle of sex. Basically, even if the woman has said yes to the man, she can tell him to stop at any time (even while his penis is in her vagina), and if he doesn’t stop, the ensuing action is considered rape. No argument from me here. It was her subsequent tweets, however, which began to eclipse her initial point. Her description of rape, which went a bit further, was tweeted within the context of her assessment of the Julian Assange extradition case. I will not get into what may or may not have happened, and the fact that there are other political ramifications, whether Assange did or did not rape two women in Sweden. Whether you’re an ardent Assange supporter or not—or you fall somewhere in the middle—you would likely be totally turned off to this woman’s points about rape and domination of women after reading her Twitter feed.

I fancy myself a feminist, and I cringe when I see women malign the entire male gender and when they resort to ad hominem attacks and outright lies and generalizations about anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Another note: dressing provocatively does not make you a traitor to women or a slut, and cringing when a girl starts talking about “eating pussy” in mixed company does not make you homophobic. I can almost guarantee that if a male said the same thing, the female wouldn’t think twice about calling him disgusting and a chauvinist. Both of the previous examples have occurred in my life, and I stand by the fact that I do not hold back women everywhere by wearing what I want, and not wanting to hear about anyone eating anyone out, thank you very much.

Back to Twitter woman, though. This woman’s succinct and important point was drowned out by an hours-long screed against pretty much anyone who dared debate her. At a point, she decided she didn’t want to answer anyone anymore because she was bored and didn’t want to put the time in, and reasoned that she didn’t owe anyone anything. She wrote things about groups of people she’d never even met, and passed them off as truth. She had a point to make, and damn anyone who got in her way. Not only is this uncivil and immature; it drowns out the point you’re trying to make and upsets anyone who might’ve been stirred by your first point. The lesson: think for more than two seconds, and don’t be an asshole. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and one asshole turn does not deserve another—not if you actually want to accomplish anything in the way of progress.

One more side note: Inevitably, people claim freedom of speech. I don’t deny the validity of this claim. People are free to say and write nearly anything they want. My point is that a lot of these things are ultimately really bad for society. They contribute to the dumbing down of society and the squinty-eyed suspicion of anyone who is remotely different than you. Much is made of the wrongness of school-age bullying, but bullying occurs in all levels of society, and is actually encouraged in many arenas.

The next example I include is Tom Morello, the singer for Rage Against the Machine. He penned an op-ed piece in Rolling Stone in response to the revelation that newly-minted Vice Presidential candidate and fiscal and social conservative extraordinaire Paul Ryan has claimed Rage Against the Machine is his favorite band. The fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is not news to everyone, but Tom Morello is apparently just now hearing about it, and he’s not happy.

Ok, the fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is pretty paradoxical, and actually really funny. It’s the kind of tidbit that gives me hope for the world, the kind of quirk that puts a smile on my face and makes me think that despite our differences, maybe we really can find common ground and appreciate each other’s artistic, stylistic, or intellectual merits, even if we don’t agree with the ideology or the message behind them. For instance, some of my favorite bands are considered Christian rock bands, and just because sometimes they explicitly sing about Jesus doesn’t mean I don’t like them. They also haven’t succeeded in turning me Christian or religious or conservative. I know of other people who listen to Bad Religion, another one of my favorite bands, who, conversely, are not at all in line with their strong atheist and progressive political themes, but who still enjoy listening.

Anyway, Tom Morello writes about the fact that, obviously, Paul Ryan doesn’t get his band’s message. He claims that “Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the type of person our music rages against”. As if this isn’t enough, Morello goes on to say that Ryan must have a lot of pent up rage.

He writes: “Don’t mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta “rage” in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he’s not raging against is the privileged elite he’s groveling in front of for campaign contributions.”

Witty? Not so much. Morello’s trying to make a point, obviously. It’s lost here, though. Morello had an opportunity to spread a real message at a time when a lot of people were tuned in. His article went viral and was read by millions on Twitter within hours of his publishing it. If anything, he should probably thank Ryan for the free PR. The rest of the article’s tone is just as scathing and perhaps even pettier. When Morello calls Ryan an “extreme fringe right wing nut job”, he’s not doing himself any favors. The side he’d like to convince is turned off completely. Maybe he’s preaching to the choir, but he owes his audience more than that. He just sounds stupid and petulant.

Yes, Ryan does promote the view that abortions are not ok even if a woman is raped. His legislation does advance policies that directly hit the poor and the hungry and disproportionately affect minorities. Yes, he is in favor of deregulation and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2009, in which he declares that carbon monoxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas. He would dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. The list goes on. There is no shortage of extreme stances to choose from, and Morello would do more to call Ryan out on the specifics with which he disagrees. Instead, Morello comes across as an embarrassing caricature of “the angry, irrational leftist”, eschewing any class or tact. I agree with most of Morello’s basic views, and I end up not liking him based on what he wrote. He loses credibility in my book because I think, ew, how downright mean and nasty and unbecoming.

Incivility abounds. And, as I said, it trickles down. I knew people in college who were all for protesting what they saw as injustice, exploitation of labor, and institutionalized inequality. So far, so good. Their self-professed desire for anarchy was not very realistic, but freedom of assembly and political freedom are protected in the United States. Peaceful protest has helped bring about great change in American history. Several of the aforementioned people, however, advocated the use of Molotov cocktails in their protests, and even if they never had the opportunity to throw one themselves, gleefully cheered on those who did. I know people who hate other groups so much that they see a necessity in terrorism. It’s the whole “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” adage.

Yes, people are oppressed, but those “fighting for freedom” are killing people. Not only is this “by any means necessary” ethic morally wrong, but it undercuts efforts for real change. I guess people are desperate or they don’t think things through enough. You hate the US Chamber of Commerce, you hate Israel (I’m not even going to get into the fact that hating every citizen of a country is beyond reasoning), you hate those who disagree with you politically, and those who hold you back. Fine. You don’t riot and throw homemade bombs at people and shoot them and celebrate suicide bombers.

You don’t dehumanize your opposition to the point that these things seem ok. You don’t listen to those who do to the point that you become desensitized, that you justify horrific actions to yourself as understandable or necessary. These things are not ok.

I don’t like fear mongering, either. I’m not attempting to fear monger here, but yes, I am drawing a connection between incivility and alienation, between harsh words and harsh actions. Not only is progress almost certainly doomed, but everyone suffers—and sometimes the result of prolonged and festering incivility is irreparable damage.